SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The gist of the complaint case is that he has a pucca residential house on plot no. 1009 of mouza Jagatpur under PS Mahisadal. He made an application before the OP No. 1 for electric connection in his said premises. On the basis of his said application, the OP no1 sent quotation of Rs. 508/- and the complainant deposited the same on 24.10.2011. But till date the OP no. 1 did not give the electric connection for the reasons, as stated by the letter of the OP no.1 dated 12.07.2017 that due to resistance of the OPs. No.2 to 4 they could not install the supply in his house. In MP Case No. 523/16 the Executive Magistrate, Haldia, passed an order and as per direction of that Court, OC and BL & LRO gave report in his favour for drawing the line. The OP Ns. 2 to 4 have electricity line in their respective houses. The house of the complainant is still in dark.
Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1.
The OP No.1 appeared and contested the case by filing written version. The OP prayed for dismissal of the case as non maintainable under various provisions of law. They also denied all the material allegations made in the complaint petition.
The specific case of the OP no.1 is that the petitioner applied for new service connection on 25.03.2011 and deposited the required fees and charge on 21.10.2011; technical staff of the OP No. 1 had been to the premises of the complainant to install electric line but due to strong resistance by his neighbors namely, Dinesh Chandra Ghorai, Basudev Ghorai, Deboprasad Ghorai, and others, the OP No. 1 could not install electric service connection. Those persons alleged that a civil litigation is pending over the alleged way leave. The matter was informed to the complainant by memo no.MCC/T-15/667 dated 12.07.2017 with a request to submit alternative way leave, but till date the petitioner/complainant neither replied not submitted any documents in support of the existing way leave. The OP no.1 also informed the matter to the OC Mohisadal P.S. to extend help.
This OP contends that they have no deficiency in service and alleged by the complainant. So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The private OP No. 2 to 4 also filed written version and contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file the case against them. The plot no. 1007 has an area of 41 decimals. These OPs have no knowledge that the complainant has any share over the said plot and also they deny that the alleged way leave is a common pathway. On the above grounds the OPs No. 2 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all the documents filed by both the parties, the affidavit in chief, the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the respective parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant.
Admittedly the complainant applied for a domestic electric connection in his premises on 25.03.2011 and deposited the required charges to the OP No.1 against their quotation. Staff of the OP no.1 had been to the premises of the complainant to effect the electric connection but they could not execute the process due to strong obstruction by the OPs no. 2 to 4 on the ground of pending civil litigation relating to the way leave, as suggested by the complainant. OP 1 also issued a letter to the OC Mahisasdal PS informing the obstruction created by the OPs no. 2 to 4. But no action could be taken by the OP no.1 due to said obstruction by the private Ops.
OP s no. 2 to 4 have stated in their written version that plot no. 1007 has an area of 41 decimals, but they have no knowledge about the share of the complainant over that plot as well as the common passage under the possession of the complainant. They also contended that they is no common passage over plot no. 1007 according to the LR record or physical possession.
The complainant has stated that he filed MP case No. 523 of 2016 before the Executive Magistrate, Haldia against the Ops no 2 to 4 which is pending. In said case the OC and BL & LRO have given report in favour of electric connection to the house of the complainant which will go through the common pathway of the complainant and OP nos. 2 to 4.
The complainant has filed examination in-chief, OP no1 filed questionnaires and the complainant has given reply to the same.
It appears from the materials on record that the OP No.1 is willing to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant but it is the Ops no 2 to 4 who are strongly in opposition for giving electric connection in the premises of the complainant.
On behalf of the OPs no. 2 to 4 some copy of order sheet of TS No. 21/18 has been filed wherefrom it appears that an order has been passed restraining main defendants from extending/giving electric supply over the KA scheduled property of plaint till 02.03.2018. It appears from copy of the plaint that OPs no. 2 to 4 allegedly filed a civil suit against the complainant and in that case OP no1 was also a party.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted a decision reported in 2017 (3) WBLR (Calcutta ), page 335 where it has been held that Electricity Act 2005 - Electric connection—status quo order by Civil Court in respect of suit property—held order of status quo passed by Civil Court cannot stand on the way of granting electric supply –The writ petitioner is entitled to get electric supply as this right is granted to a citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Besides that ,‘Electricity being an essential necessity one cannot be barred from taking the benefit of the same from the Licensee. As such as per Section 43 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 ’ Every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application for requiring such supply. Moreover the OP-1 had received charges on 01.09.2006 and security deposit on 05.09.2006 and as sub-section 2 of Sec. 43 it shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in Sub-section 1. Section 43 envisages “if a distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within a period specified in Sub-sec. 1 he shall be liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each of default. That being the statutory provision we do not find why the OP 1 withheld the distribution of electric supply to the occupier of the premises, the complainant herein.
So in view of the materials on record and in view of the decision and rules, aforesaid we hold that the complainant is entitled to get electric connection from the OP No.1 as it is a emergency right of the complainant, a citizen of India.
Both the issues are answered accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/583 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
The OP No1 is hereby directed to give electric connection in the premises of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP no.1 as well as the OPs no 2 to 4 will have to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in equal 1/4th share.
There will be no order as to litigation cost.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
